Free Will as a Humans Ability - Essay Example

Introduction Free Will is the ability of s or humans to make choices without external constraints. Though the debate on the free will and whatkind of external constraints actually limit the ability of humans to have free will is quite old what is however, critical to understand that these constraints are often metaphysical in nature. However, since humans are created by God and if God is omnipotent who knows past, present and future therefore humans cannot have free will. This position however, may be against the proposition that if God is omnipotent and all knowing, there should not be free will given to humans. Given the degree of freedom to humans in making choices, God therefore cannot be omnipotent if humans have free will. The debate on free will and omnipotence of God revolves around the existence of God and the creation of an environment which is just and moral. Argument suggests that if God is good he would have created a world with free creatures whose all actions would have been subject to moral consequences. However, since there is evil in this world and man has a free will therefore God either does not exists or is not omnipotent in his entirety. It is also however, important to understand that there is a general misunderstanding of the term omnipotence because it is not entirely related with the raw power but with the ability to actualize things. Viewing from this perspective, both the arguments therefore may reconcile. This paper however will debate and argue that God is not omnipotent because humans have free will to exercise. Free Will and Omnipotence As discussed in the introductory paragraph, free will is the ability of humans to make decisions or make choices without any significant external constraints. Such constraints are often considered as metaphysical constraints of determinism. There are two opposing views when one argues about the free will i.e. libertarianism and hard determinism. Libertarianism suggests that determinism is not necessarily true therefore free will exists however; hard determinism suggests that free will does not exists. (Alston) It is also critical to understand that free will as a concept has different connotations or implications including religious, scientific as well as ethical. Religious implications of the concept of free will suggest that the individual will and choices can actually coexist with a divinity which is omnipotent. Omnipotence is often related with the unlimited power and monotheistic religions often consider it as only one of the attributes of the deity. What is also important to note that word omnipotence also means that a diet can do anything even those things which are logically inconsistent or impossible. Such explanation however may be difficult to accept as it has been argued that to define the omnipotent powers of God is relatively impossible to even consider. The omnipotence of God means God already know about the past, present and future of an individual as he is all knowing. If God possesses such traits therefore the free will has no place as the events of a person’s lives are not controlled by the individual. The traditional argument that God cannot be omnipotent because there also exists evil therefore both cannot be logically reconciled. What is also interesting to understand that since evil free will exists therefore God can either do not exist or he is not the omnipotent? One of the key arguments regarding the position that God cannot be omnipotent if humans have free will is based upon the principles of logic. To prove something philosophically, it is important that both the claims should be logically consistent with each other. The logical inconsistency of two arguments therefore can clearly outline that God cannot be omnipotent because man has always exercised his free will since the beginning of history. (Mackie) Religious beliefs in general also lack rationality and therefore can easily be discarded because logically they are not only inconsistent but cannot be proved also. Therefore there is a clear paradox between God’s omnipotence and the human free will as if God is omnipotent and he knows everything than man cannot exercise his free will. The concept of omnipotence also indicates that an omnipotent God seem to have the ability to bring any state of affair. This however, has been termed as incoherent because agent cannot bring about any change which is impossible to achieve or rather cannot bring a state of affair which is logically impossible. This argument therefore suggests that in the presence of a free will it is relatively not possible for God to actually know and do everything. The overall idea of punishment as well as hell and paradise also can be used to argue that God is not omnipotent. The concept of punishment outlines that the agents are being punished for de-railing from the divine path given by the creator. Such deviance however, can only be possible if man can exercise his free will and commit actions which may not be considered as moral from the perspective of religion. As such if there exists the concept of punishment, hell and paradise, it do indicate that god may not be omnipotent in his entirety because some of his powers or abilities might have been shared by the humans. Alvin Plantinga’s arguments also logically favors that it is possible to have a world where free creatures can bring evil. Plantinga argues that a world which has free souls is much better than a world which contains no free creatures. As such according to Plantinga, a world with free creatures is more desired state of affairs than the world having no free creatures or not having the ability to perform according to will. (Oppy) It is also important to understand that the concept of evil and free will are associated as almost all academics agree that the problem of evil and having free will can only be resolved if evil is being seen as a separate human attribute rather than being assigned to God. It is therefore argued that a world is possible where either evil can exists or do not exist because it is a human attribute. The inability of God to control evil actions of the humans and the rapid flourishing of the actions which may be considered as morally wrong or illogical therefore can easily be considered as a strong argument against the ability of God to know everything. The fact that evil exists because humans can exercise free will therefore is one of the key arguments in favor of the proposition that God may not be omnipotent. The logical argument that 1) God exists 2) God is wholly good 3) evil exists therefore may suggest that either evil exist or God is not wholly good and all knowing. Here the existence of evil has been associated with the free will of the individuals and how it manifest itself through evil acts. (Tooley) There is also a dichotomy between the concepts of divine moral perfection and omnipotence. According to the concept of omnipotence, God can bring about anything including and having a moral perfection however, defies this. It is therefore suggested that both the concepts are incompatible with each other and as such only one attribute of God can exist which is logically consistent. The divine perfection as well as the omnipotence therefore may not exist together as the condition of perfection requires that there will be no evil and whatever happens happens for a certain reason. In such case, there may not be moral consequences of the actions of God and whatever happens may happen because it can bring greater good to the mankind. There is also an argument which suggests that having free will does not mean man has the power to materialize or actualize his will do. This argument therefore views omnipotence in terms of the ability to do anything while the concept of will is being associated with making desires which can either be fulfilled or remained unfilled depending upon God’s will to complete them in favor of man. It is also important to understand that both the concepts can co-exist together only if the free-will is given for some greater good by God. As such if the free-will and the evil are for the greater good of the humans, it may be possible to reconcile the logical inconsistency between the omnipotence of God and the humans having free will. (Hoffman and Rosenkrantz) Conclusion Omnipotence is considered as one of the attributes of God and this attribute gives powers to God to know all and do all. While possessing such powers, it is argued that there may not be any free will because God knows about the past, present and future of humans therefore there cannot be free will. However, this may not be the case as the logical inconsistencies between the different attributes and characteristics of God. It is argued that if god is divinely perfect and omnipotent than evil cannot exist however, since evil exists therefore God cannot be omnipotent. Works Cited Oppy, Graham, Arguing about Gods Leiden Cambridge University Press 2006 Mackie .J.L Evil and Omnipotence Mind 64(254) 200–212 Hoffman, Joshua and Rosenkrantz, Gary, Omnipotenc 2009. Jan 2, 2012 http://plato.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/encyclopedia/archinfo.cgi?entry=omnipotence Alston, W, The Inductive Argument From Evil and the Human Cognitive Condition Philosophical Perspectives 51 (99) 129–67 Tooley, Michael, The Problem of Evil 2010 , Dec 31, 2011 http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evil/ Read More